Report of the Iskra Editorial Board to the Meeting (Conference) of R.S.D.L.P. Committees[2]

March5, 1902.

Comrades!Only the day before yesterday we received notice of the meeting
      to be called for March 21, together with the entirely unexpected
      information that the original plan to hold a conference had been
      superseded by a plan to convene a Party congress. We do not know who is
      responsible for this sudden and unmotivated change. On our part, we
      consider it most unfortunate. We protest against such rapid changes in
      decisions on highly complex and important Party measures, and strongly
      recommend a return to the original plan for a conference.

Tobe convinced of the necessity for this, it is enough, in our opinion,
      to give more careful consideration to the agenda (Tagesordnung)
      of the congress, which was likewise communicated to us only the day before
      yesterday; more over, we do not know whether this is only a draftTagesordnung, and whether this agenda has been proposed by one or
      by several organisations. The agenda provides for nine questions to be
      discussed by the congress in the following order (I am giving a brief
      summary of the points): A) the economic struggle; B) the political
      struggle; C) political agitation; D) May Day; E) the attitude towards
      opposition elements; F) the attitude towards revolutionary groups
      unaffiliated to the Party; G) organisation of the Party; H) the Central
      Organ, and I) representatives and Party organisations abroad.

First,in its architecture and in the wording of the individual questions
      this agenda produces an irresistibleimpression of

      “economism.”[3]We do not of course think that the organisation proposing this agenda
      would entertain “economist” views to this day (althoughto
      some extentthis is not altogether impossible), but we ask the
      comrades to remember that it is also necessary to take into account both
      the opinion held by international revolutionary Social-Democracy, and
      those survivals of “economism” which are still widespread in
      our country. Just imagine: the advanced party of political struggle calls
      a congress at a time when all revolutionary and opposition forces in the
      country, which have begun a direct attack on the autocracy, are straining
      every effort—and all of a sudden we lay chief stress on the
      “economic struggle”, with “politics”followingonly in the wake!! Is this not a copy of the
      traditional error of our “economists,” who claim that political
      agitation (resp.struggle) should come after the economic? Is it
      possible to imagine that it would occur to any European Social-Democratic
      Party, during a revolutionary period, to place the question of the
      trade-union movement before all other questions? Or take this separation
      of the question of political agitation from the question of the political
      struggle! Does it not smack of the usual fallacy which contraposes the
      political struggle to political agitation as something fundamentally
      different, something belonging to a different stage? Or, lastly, how is
      one to explain the fact that demonstrations figure in the agendaprimarilyas ameans of the economic struggle!??After
      all, we must not forget that at the present time anumberof
      elements hostile to Social-Democracy are levelling against all
      Social-Democracy the accusation of “economism”: these
      accusations are being made byNakanune,[4]byVestnik Russkoi Revolutsii, bySvoboda,[1][5]and even (even!) byRusskoye Bogatstvo.We must not forget that
      whatever resolutions the conference may adopt, the agenda itself will
      remain a historical document by which the level of our entire Party’s
      political development will be judged.

Secondly,it is astonishing that the agenda raises (a few days before the
      congress!) questions that should bediscussed only after thorough preparations, only when it is possible to
      adopt really definite and comprehensible decisions on them—otherwise
      it is better not to discuss them at all for the time being. For example,
      points E and F: the attitude towards opposition and other revolutionary
      trends. These questions must be discussed in advance, from all angles,
      reports drawn up on them, and differences in existing shades made
      clear—only then can we adopt decisions that would actually offer
      something new, that would serve as a realguidefor the whole
      Party, and not merely repeat some traditional “generalisation.” In
      point of fact, just consider: can we in a few days prepare a comprehensive
      and well-grounded decision that would take into consideration all the
      practical requirements of the movement on the questions of the attitude
      towards the “revolutionary-socialistSvobodagroup”
      or towards the new-born “Socialist-Revolutionary Party”? This apart
      from the strange impression, to say the least, that will be produced on
      every one by the fact that revolutionary groups unaffiliated to the Party
      are mentioned, while nothing is said on so important a question as the
      attitude towards the

      Bund,[6]or a revision of the clauses dealing with the latter, in the resolutions
      of the First Congress of the Party.

Thirdly—andmost important—there is an unpardonable omission
      in the agenda: not a word is said of thestandtaken by
      present-day Russian revolutionary Social-Democracyon matters of
      principle, or of itsParty programme.At a time when the
      whole world is clamouring about the “crisis of Marxism,” and all
      Russian liberal publicists are clamouring even about its collapseand
      disappearance, when the question of the “two trends in Russian
      Social-Democracy” has not only been placed on the order of the
      day, but has even found its way into various lecture programmes, into the
      programmes for propagandists’ talks and self-education groups—at a
      time like this it is quite impossible to pass over these questions in
      silence. We, comrades, are being ridiculed by our opponents, who·
      already say evenin print(see Nadezhdin, “The Eve of the
      Revolution”) that we have grown accustomed to “reporting that all’s
      well”!...

Inour opinion, all the above-mentioned shortcomings in the agenda prove
      convincingly how irrational is theplan to convert into a congress a conference that has already been
      summoned. We understand, of course, how keenly everyone feels the fact
      that there has been no Party congress since 1898, how tempting the idea is
      of using the efforts spent in organising the conference so as to put an
      end to this existence of a “party without party institutions.” But
      it would be a very great mistake to let these practical considerations
      make us forget that from a congress of the Russian Social-Democratic
      Labour Party everyone now expects decisions which would be on a level withallthe revolutionary tasks of the present time; that if we fail
      to rise to the occasionnow, at this truly critical moment, we
      may bury all Social-Democracy’s hopes to gain the hegemony in the
      political struggle; that it is better not to be grudge an expense of a few
      thousand rubles and several months of preparatory organisational work, and
      to use the present conference so as to prepare for the summer a congress
      that will really be ageneral Partycongress capable of finally
      settling all immediate problems both in the sphere of theory (the
      theoretical programme) and in the sphere of the political struggle.

Lookat the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are more and more skilfully
      taking advantage of our shortcomings and gaining ground to the detriment
      of Social-Democracy. They have only just formed a “party,” founded atheoreticalorgan, and decided to launch a politicalmonthlynewspaper. What will be said of the Social-Democrats ifafterthis event they fail to achieve at their congress resultsat least such as these?Are we not running the risk of creating
      the impression that when it comes to a clear-cut programme and
      revolutionary organisation the Social-Democrats are not ahead of this
      “party,” which is known to be gathering around it self all sorts of
      indeterminate, undetermined, and even undeterminable elements?

Inview of all this we believe that the present congress of committee
      representatives should not be declared the Second regular Congress of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, but anunofficial
      conference.This conference smain and immediate taskshould
      be to organise and prepare for next summer a realgeneral Party
      congresscapable of endorsing the Party programme, making finalarrangements for publication of a political weekly organ of the Party, and
      in general bringing about the complete and actual unification of all
      committees and even of all groups (in

      print-shops,[7]etc.) of Social-Democrats on the basis of steadfastness of principle,
      loyalty to the principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy, and genuinely
      militant preparedness foroffensivepolitical action.

Proceedingfrom this basic idea, we take the liberty of submitting to the
      comrades for their consideration the followingTagesordnungfor
      our conference:

1.Statement of principles. In the resolution on this question an
      emphatic stand should be taken against those deplorable attempts to
      restrict our theory and our tasks, which were but recently quite
      widespread. By vigorously rejecting any such restrictions the Party
      conference will make an important contribution to the unification of all
      Social-Democrats on matters of principle and will re establish the shaken
      prestige of revolutionary Marxism. Some comrades may perhaps express. fear
      that discussion on the statement of principles will take up a great deal
      of time and divert attention from practical questions. We do not in the
      least share these apprehensions, for we believe that the extensive debates
      in the illegal press have cleared up the question so well that we shall
      reach an agreement on the principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy
      with great speed and ease. On the other hand, it is utterly impossible to
      do without a statement of principles.

Moreover,the removal of this question from the conference’sTagesordnungwould in any case fail in its purpose since the very
      same question would inevitably come up, only in more disjointed form, in
      the discussion of the resolutions on the economic struggle, the political
      struggle, etc. For this reason it would be far more expedient to first
      finish with this matter, refrain from splitting up our resolutions on
      political agitation, strikes, and so on, and give one connected exposition
      of the view on our main tasks.

Onour part, we will endeavour to prepare a draft of this resolution and
      append it to this report (if time permits).

2.The Second regular Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour
	Party.Here we have in view the preliminary (and, of course, to a
	certain extent tentative)decision on the question of the date of the congress (summer, or not later
      than autumn, since it is desirable to end it before the next
      “season”), the place (in connection with which the conditions of
      secrecy must be carefully considered), the funds required for its
      arrangement (Iskra, on its part, would be prepared to immediately
      contribute 500 rubles for this purpose, from a certain special donation it
      has received; we would possibly be able soon to find another such sum or
      even more. We should discuss how many thousand rubles it will
      approximately cost, and practical ways of raising the rest); lastly, the
      general principles of representation and the fullest possible
      representation (i. e., so as to ensure representation of definite
      pre-selected committees and certain groups, and possibly also of study
      circles of Russian Social-Democrats, to say nothing of the comparatively
      easy task of securing representatives from the two Social- Democratic
      organisations abroad; a procedure should also be adopted for discussing
      the question of inviting to the congress such organisations that may be
      founded in the interim between conference and congress, etc., etc.).

3.Election 01an Organising Committee. Generally speaking, the task of this
      O.C. should be to implement conference decisions, make preparations for
      and arrange the congress, set a final date and place for the latter,
      attend to its practical organisation, arrange such matters as the
      transport of literature, and establish Party print-shops in Russia (with
      the aid ofIskra, two local print-shop groups sympathising with
      our publications have been formed in Russia; they have succeeded in
      publishing in their two print-shops Nos. 10 and 11 ofIskra, the
      pamphlets.What Next?, The Tenth Anniversary 01 the Morozov Strike,
      The Speech by Pyotr Alexeyev, The Indictment in the Obukhov Case, and
      many others, as well as a number of leaflets. We hope that representatives
      from these local groups will be able to participate in the work of the
      conference and that they will assist in every way in the accomplishment of
      the general Party tasks); further, it should give assistance to various
      local organisations, labour unions, students’ organisations, and so on and
      so forth. With the support of all organisations, this 0. C. could, in the
      space of three or four months, fully prepare the ground for theformation of a real Central Committee, capablede factoof
      directing the entire political struggle of our Party.

Inview of the complexity and variety of the O.C.’s tasks, it should, in
      our opinion, consist of a fairly large number of members (5-7), who should
      be directed to elect a bureau, distribute functions among themselves, and
      hold several meetings prior to the congress.

4.Election of a committee for preparing a draft Party programme.As the editors ofIskra(including the Emancipation of Labour

      group[8])

      have already been working on this difficult job for a long time, we
      venture to propose the following plan to the comrades. We have already
      completed the entire draft of the practical section of the programme,
      including the draft agrarian programme, and, besides,twovariants for the theoretical part of the programme have been prepared. Our
      representative will acquaint the conference with these drafts, should this
      be found necessary and if nothing comes up to prevent him from doing
      so. From these two variants, we are at present drawing up a single general
      draft, but of course we should not like to make it public in its rough
      form, i.e., before the work is completed. Should the conference elect
      several persons to collaborate with our Editorial Board in the preparation
      of the programme, that might perhaps be the most practical solution of the
      question.

Forour part, we can in any case give the comrades an immediate formal
      undertaking to submit within a few weeks the final draft of the Party
      programme, which we intended to publish in advance inIskra, so
      as to enableallcomrades to get acquainted with it, and to
      obtain their comments.

5.The Central Organ.In view of the tremendous difficulties
      involved in launching a periodical which would appear regularly and be
      adequately provided with literary and technical facilities, the conference
      will most likely follow the example of the First Congress of the Party and
      choose an existing publication. Whether the question is settled in this
      way, or whether it is decided to launch an entirely new periodical, it
      will in any case be necessary to instruct a special committee, or better
      still the same Organising Committee, to undertake the preparatory workand to discuss the matter from all angles together with the existing or
      newly-elected editorial board.

Itwould be essential, in our opinion, to draw the Emancipation of Labour
      group into this discussion, for without its co-operation and guidance we
      cannot imagine the proper organisation of a political organ that would be
      consistent in principle and would in general meet all the requirements of
      the movement.

Inasmuchas attempts to establish a fortnightly periodical have already
      been made before the conference, the Party should make it its immediate
      task to establish aweekly newspaper:this would be fully
      possible given reallyjointwork on such a paper byallRussian Social-Democrats.

6.Preparation of the agenda for the Party congress and reports on
	that agenda. The conference should draw up part of this agenda
	itself, and entrust part of it to the Organising Committee; it shouldwithout failappoint (resp.find) reporters on each
	question. Only by appointing re porter.s in advance is it possible to
	ensure a truly comprehensive discussion of the various questions and
	correct decisions on them at the congress (some of the reports could be
	printed beforehand in full or in part, and discussed in the press; for
	instance, we hope to publish soon an almost completed treatise on the
	agrarian programme of Russian Social-Democracy, etc., written by a
	member of the Editorial

      Board,[* See pp. 107-50 of this
	volume.—Ed.]

      etc.).

7.Current practical questions of the movement—for example,
      a) discussion and endorsement of a May Day leaflet (resp.discussion of drafts submitted byIskraand other organisations).

b)The May Day demonstration—the time and methods of its
      organisation.

c)Instructions to the Organising Committee to assist in organising
      boycotts, demonstrations, etc., and at the same time gradually to prepare
      the minds of Party members, and likewise the forces and means of the
      Party, for a general uprising of the people.

d)Various financial questions relating to the maintenance of the Organising
      Committee,etc.

Concludingour report on the tasks andTagesordnungof our
      congress, we shall only remark that it. is absolutely impossible for us to
      draw up a detailed report on the work ofIskrabecause we are
      extremely pressed for time. We are therefore compelled to limit ourselves
      to the following brief outline.

1.The conference categorically rejects each and every attempt to inject
      opportunism into the revolutionary class movement of the
      proletariat—attempts which have found expression in the so-called
      “criticism of Marxism,”

      Bernsteinism,[9]and “economism.” At a time when the bourgeoisie of all countries is
      rejoicing over the so widely publicised “crisis in socialism,” the
      conference declares, in the name of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
      Party, its solidarity with the revolutionary international
      Social-Democratic movement, and expresses its firm conviction that
      Social-Democracy will emerge from this crisis stronger than ever and
      prepared for a relentless struggle for the achievement of its great
      ideals.

2.The conference declares its solidarity with the Manifesto of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour

      Party[10]and confirms that it considers the overthrow of the autocracy the
      immediate political task of the Party. The conference declares that in its
      work for the accomplishment of this immediate task as well as of its
      ultimate aim Social-Democracy lays chief stress on all-round and
      nation-wide political agitation which calls on the proletariat to fight
      against all manifestations of economic, political, national, and social
      oppression, whatever section of the population this oppression is directed
      against. The conference declares that the Party will support every
      revolutionary and progressive opposition movement directed against the
      existing political and social system. The conference particularly
      recommends, as practical methods of struggle, the organisation of
      boycotts, manifestations at theatres, etc., as well as organised mass
      demonstrations. The conference advises all Party committees and groups to
      devotedue attention to the need for preparatory measures for a nation-wide armed
      uprising against the tsarist autocracy.

3.The conference declares that Russian Social-Democracy will continue as
      heretofore to guide the economic struggle of the proletariat, will strive
      to extend and deepen it, to strengthen its ideological and organisational
      bonds with the Social-Democratic labour movement, and will endeavour to
      take advantage of every manifestation of this struggle so as to develop
      the political consciousness of the proletariat and draw the latter into
      the political struggle. The conference declares that there is no need what
      ever to conduct agitation from the very outset on an economic basis alone,
      or to consider economic agitation in general to be the most widely
      applicable means of drawing the masses into the political struggle.

(N.B.: It is very important here too toe x p o s e

	R a b o c h e y e

	D y e l o[11]once again!!)

4.(About the peasantry—should this be done perhaps in the spirit of
      our agrarian programme?

Ishall try to prepare and forward it at once.)

[1]See pp. 285–86 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Report of theIskraEditorial Board, which was written by
	Lenin, was intended for the conference of committees and organisations
	of the R.S.D.L.P. held on March 23-28 (April 5-10), 1902, in
	Belostok. Represented at the conference were: the St. Petersburg and
	Ekaterinoslav committees of the R.S.D.L.P., the League of Southern
	Committees and Organisations of the R.S.D.L.P., the Central Committee of
	the Bund and its Foreign Committee, the Union of Russian
	Social-Democrats Abroad, and theIskraEditorial Board (whose
	representative, F. I. Dan, had a mandate from the League of Russian
	Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad). Through the fault of the
	conference organisers, who were “economists,” the delegate of theIskraEditorial Board arrived late, after the conference had
	begun, while F. V. Lengnik, the representative of the RussianIskraorganisation, did not get to the conference at all,
	although he arrived in Belostok in good time. The representative of the
	Nizbni-Novgorod Committee (Iskratrend), A. I. Piskunov, who
	arrived in Belostok before Dan, protested at the absence of
	representatives of organisations of theIskratrend, and soon
	left. The “economists” and the Bundists, who supported them,
	had intended to convert the conference into the Second Congress of the
	R.S.D.L.P., reckoning thereby to strengthen their ownposition in the ranks of Russian Social-Democracy and paralyseIskra’sgrowing influence. Their attempt, however, failed, both
	because of the conference’s comparatively limited composition (only four
	of the R.S.D.L.P. organisations operating in Russia were represented)
	and the deep disagreements on matters of principle, which were revealed
	at the conference; in particular, theIskradelegate, who
	raised strong objection to the conference being converted into a Party
	congress, stated that the conference had not been properly prepared and
	authorised.

TheBelostok Conference adopted a constituting resolution and a
	theoretical resolution, proposed by the delegate of the Bund Central
	Committee, with amendments made by the representative of the League of
	Southern Committees and Organisations of the R.S.D.L.P. (theIskradelegate, who had advanced his own draft of the
	theoretical resolution, voted against). The conference also approved the
	text of a May Day leaflet, which was based on a draft drawn up by theIskraEditorial Board. The conference elected an Organising
	Committee to prepare the Second Party Congress, consisting of
	representatives ofIskra(F. I. Dan), the League of Southern
	Committees and Organisations of the R.S.D.L.P.

	(0. A. Yermansky), and the Central Committee of the Bund

	(K. Portnoi). Soon after the conference, most of its delegates,
	including two members of the Organising Committee, were arrested by the
	police. A new Organising Committee to prepare the Second Congress of the
	R.S.D.L.P. was formed in November 1902 in Pskov at a conference of
	representatives of the R.S.D.L.P.’s St. Peters burg Committee, the
	Russian organisation ofIskra, and theYuzhny Rabochy
	(Southern Worker) group.

[3]“Economism”—an opportunist trend in Russian
      Social-Democracy at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the
      twentieth centuries, a Russian variety of international opportunism. The
      news paperRabochaya Mysl (Workers’ Thought) (1897-1902) and the
      magazineRabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause) (1899-1902) were organs
      of the “economists.”

In1899 there appearedCredo, a manifesto of the
      “economists,” which was drawn up by E. D. Kuskova. When Lenin, then
      in exile, received a copy ofCredo, he wroteA Protest by
      Russian Social Democrats, in which he sharply criticised the
      programme of the “economists.” This protest was discussed and
      unanimously adopted at a conference of 17 Marxists serving terms of
      political exile, held in the village of Yermakovskoye, in Minusinsk
      Region. The “economists” limited the tasks of the working
      class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working
      conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle was the business
      of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the leading role of the party of
      the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the
      spontaneous process of the movement and register events. In their
      deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the
      “economists” belittled the significance of revolutionary
      theory and class-consciousness, asserted that socialist ideology could
      ariseout of the spontaneous movement, denied the need to instill socialist
      consciousness into the working-class movement, and thereby cleared the way
      for bourgeois ideology. The “economists,” who opposed the need to
      create a centralised working-class party, stood for the sporadic and
      amateurish character of individual circles and fostered confusion and
      wavering in the Social-Democratic movement. “Economism”
      threatened to divert the working class from the class revolutionary path
      and turn it into a political appendage of the bourgeoisie.

Lenin’sIskraplayed a major part in the struggle against
      “economism.” By his book,What Is to Be Done?, which
      appeared in March 1902, V. I. Lenin brought about., the final ideological
      rout of “economism.”

[4]Nakanune (On the Eve)—amonthly magazine of the Narodnik
      trend, published in Russian in London from January 1899 to February 1902
      under the editorship of W. A. Serebryakov; 37 numbers were issued. Grouped
      round the magazine, which advocated general democratic views, were
      representatives of various petty-bourgeois parties and trends; a hostile
      attitude to Marxism in general and to Russian revolutionary
      Social-Democracy in particular was characteristic ofNakanune.

[5]Svoboda (Freedom)—amagazine published in Switzerland by
      the “revolutionary-socialist” groupSooboda, founded
      by E. O. Zelensky (Nadezhdin) in May 1901. Only two numbers of the
      magazine appeared: No. tin 1901 and No. 2 in 1902. V. I. Lenin considered
      that theSvobodagroup belonged to those “rootless
      groupings” which had “neither settled serious views,
      programmes, tactics, and organisations, nor roots in the masses”
      (see present edition, Vol. 20, “On Adventurism”). In its
      publications (besidesSvoboda, the group publishedThe Eve of
      Revolution. An Irregular Review of Problems of Theory and Tactics,
      No. 1; the newspaper-magazineOtkliki [Responses], No. 1;
      Nadezhdin’s programmatic pamphlet,The Rebirth of Revolutionism in
      Russia, and others) theSvobodagroup advocated the ideas of
      terrorism and “economism.” In a bloc with the St. Petersburg
      “economists,” it came out againstIskraand the
      St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. The group ceased to exist in
      1903.

[6]The Bund—the General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania,
      Poland, and Russia—was organised in 1897 at an inaugural congress of
      Jewish Social-Democratic groups in Vilno; in the main, it united
      semi-proletarian elements of the Jewish artisans in the Western regions of
      Russia. At the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1898), the Bund joined
      the Party “as an autonomous organisation, independent only in regard
      to questions specially concerning the Jewish proletariat.”

TheBund brought nationalism and separatism into the Rus sian working-class
      movement and took an opportunist stand on the most important questions of the
      Social-Democratic movement.In April 1901, the Bund’s Fourth Congress voted for abolition of the
      organisational relations established by the First Congress of the
      R.S.D.L.P., stating in its resolution that it regarded the R.S.D.L.P. as a
      federative association of national organisations which the Bund should
      join as a federative unit.

Atthe Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., which rejected the Bund’s demand
      that it should be recognised as the sole representative of the Jewish
      proletariat, the Bund left the Party, rejoining it in 1906, on the basis
      of a decision of the Fourth (Unity) Congress.

Withinthe R.S.D.L.P., the Bundists constantly supported its opportunist
      wing (the “economists,” Mensheviks, and liquidators), and waged a
      struggle against the Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. To the Bolshevik
      programme’s demand for the right of nations to self-determination the Bund
      opposed the demand for cultural and national autonomy. During the years of
      the Stolypin reaction, the Bund adopted a liquidators’ stand and took an
      active part in forming the anti-Party August bloc. During the First World
      War, the Bundists took a social-chauvinist stand. In 1917 the Bund
      supported the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government and fought on
      the side of the enemies of the October Socialist Revolution, its
      leadership joining the forces of counter-revolution during the years of
      foreign military intervention and civil war. At the same time a swing
      towards co-operation with Soviet power was to be observed among the Bund
      rank and file. In March 1921 the Bund dissolved itself, part of its
      members joining the R.C.P. (B.) on a general basis.

[7]“ The reference is to the Baku and Kishinev print-shops ofIskra.

TheKishinev print-shop was organised by L. I. Goldman in April 1901 and
      existed until March 12(25), 1902. It printed G. V.  Plekhanov’s article,
      “What Next?” (reprinted from No. 2-3 ofZarya),
      N. K. Krupskaya’s pamphlet,The Working Woman, The Indictment in the

	Case 01the May Disturbances at the Obukhou Factory(reprinted fromIskra, No. 9, with V. I. Lenin’s article, "The New
	Battle,” as a supplement), V. I. Lenin’s articles, “The Struggle
	Against Starvation” (reprinted from No. 2-3 ofZarya) and
	“The Beginning of Demonstrations” (reprinted fromIskra, No. 13), and also a number of manifestos an
	leaflets. No. 10 ofIskrawas reprinted at this print-shop.

TheBaku print-shop (called “Nina” in secret correspondence)
      was organised in September 1901 by a group of BakuIskra-ists
      (V. Z. Ketskhoveli, L. B. Krasin, L. I. Galperin, N. P. Kozerenko,
      V. Sturna, and others) with the assistance of the Tiflis Committee of the
      R.S.D.L.P. Prior to March 1902, when the “Nina” print-shop
      temporarily discontinued its work, it had printed the pamphlets,Spiders and Flies, by W. Liebknecht,The Ways People
      Live, by S. Dikstein,The Speech of Pyotr Alexeyev, The Tenth
      Anniversary of the Morozov Strike, and proclamations and leaflets in
      Russian and Georgian. The Baku print-shop reprinted No. H ofIskraand printed the Georgian illegal Marxist newspaperErdzola (The Struggle).After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L
      P.,the Baku print-shop became the central Party print-shop and carried out
      tasks set by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. In December 1905, the
      print-shop was closed down by decision of the Central Committee of the
      Party.

[8]The Emancipation of Labour group—the first Russian Marxist
      group—was founded by G. V. Plekhanov in Switzerland in 1883. Besides
      Plekhanov, the group included P. B. Axelrod, L. G. Deutsch,
      V. I. Zasulich, and V. N. Ignatov.

TheEmancipation of Labour group did much to propagate Marxism in
      Russia. It translated into the Russian language works by Karl Marx and
      Frederick Engels, such asThe Manifesto of the Communist Party; Wage
      Labour and Capital; Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, publishing
      them abroad and distributing them in Russia, and also popularised Marxism
      through its publications. The Emancipation of Labour group dealt a severe
      blow at Narodism, which was the chief ideological obstacle to the spread
      of Marxism and the development of the Social-Democratic movement in
      Russia. In his works,Socialism and the Political Struggle(1883),Our Differences(1885), and others, G. V. Plekhanov gave
      a Marxist criticism of the Narodnik theories of Russia’s non-capitalist
      path of development, the Narodniks’ subjective-idealist view of the role
      of the individual in history, the denial of the proletariat’s leading role
      in the revolutionary movement, etc. Written by Plekhanov and published by
      the Emancipation of Labour group, the two draft programmes of the Russian
      Social-Democrats (1883 and 1885) were an important step in preparing for
      and creating the Social-Democratic party in Russia. Of special importance
      in spreading Marxist views and in substantiating and defending dialectical
      an d historical materialism was Plekhanov’s (N. Beltov’s) book,The
      Development of the Monist View of History(1895), on which “an
      entire generation of Russian Marxists were trained” see present
      edition, Vol. 16 ,“On theVperyodGroup”). The group
      published and distributed in Russia four issues of the magazineSotsial-Demokrat, as well as a series of popular pamphlets for
      workers.

Engelswelcomed the appearance of the Emancipation of Labour group,
      “which frankly and without equivocation accepted the great economic
      and historical theories of Marx” (see Frederick Engels’ Letter to
      V. I. Zasulich, April 23, 1885. Marx and Engels,Selected
      Correspondence, Moscow, p. 459). G. V. Plekhanov and V. I. Zasulich
      were personal friends of Engels and corresponded with him for many
      years. The Emancipation of Labour group established contacts with the
      international working-class movement and, beginning with the First
      Congress of the Second International in 1889 (Paris) and throughout the
      whole of its existence represented Russian Social-Democracy at all
      congresses of the International. But the views of the Emancipation of
      Labour group also contained serious errors: over-estimation of the liberal
      bourgeoisie’s role and under-estimation of the revolutionary nature of
      peasant ry as the reserve force of the proletarian revolution. These were
      the germ of the future Menshevik views held by Plekhanov and othermembers of the group. V. I. Lenin pointed out that the Emancipation of
      Labour group “provided only the theoretical foundations of
      Social-Democracy and took the first step towards the working-class
      movement” (see present edition, Vol. 20, “The Ideological
      Struggle in the Working-Class Movement”).

In1894 the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad was formed on the
      initiative of the Emancipation of Labour group. The members of the
      Emancipation of Labour group and their adherents left the Union in 1900
      and founded theSotsial-Demokratrevolutionary
      organisation. G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axelrod, and V. I. Zasulich, who were
      members of the group, were on the Editorial Board ofIskraandZarya.At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1903,
      the Emancipation of Labour group announced that it had ceased to exist.

[9]Bernsteinism—atrend hostile to Marxism in the German and
      international Social-Democratic movement, which originated at the end of
      the nineteenth century and was named after Eduard Bernstein, the most
      outspoken representative of revisionism.

In1896-98 Bernstein wrote a series of articles entitled “Problems
      of Socialism” for the magazineDie Neue Zeit, the
      theoretical organ of German Social-Democracy. In these articles, he tried
      under the guise of “freedom of criticism” to revise (hence the
      word “revisionism”) the philosophical, economic, and political
      foundations of revolutionary Marxism and to substitute for them bourgeois
      theories of reconciliation of class contradictions and of class
      collaboration. He attacked Marx’s doctrine of the impoverishment of the
      working class, the growth of class contradictions, crises, the inevitable
      collapse of capitalism, socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the
      proletariat, and brought forward a programme of social-reformism expressed
      in the formula: “the movement is everything, the final
      goal—nothing.” In 1899 Bernstein’s articles appeared in a hook
      entitledThe Premises of Socialism and the Tasks of
      Social-Democracy.The book had the support of German
      Social-Democracy’s Right wing, and of opportunist elements in other
      parties of the Second International, including the Russian
      “economists.”

Bernsteinismwas condemned at the congresses of the German
      Social-Democratic Party in Stuttgart (October 1898), Hanover (October
      1899), and Lübeck (September 1901). However, the Party leadership did
      not show sufficient determination in opposing Bernstein and his adherents,
      but adopted a conciliatory attitude. The Bernsteinites continued their
      open propaganda of revisionist ideas in the magazineSozialistische
      Monatshefte (Socialist Monthly) and in the Party organisations.

Headedby V. I. Lenin, the Bolshevik Party alone waged a consistent and
      resolute struggle against Bernsteinism and its adherents and followers in
      Russia. As early as 1899, Lenin came out against the Bernsteinites in his
      “A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats” and in his article,
      “Our Programme” (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 167-82 and
      210-14). His writings, “Marxism andRevisionism” (see present edition, Vol. 15), “Differences in the
      European Labour Movement” (see present edition, Vol. 16), and
      others, were also devoted to an exposure of Bernsteinism.

[10]The reference is to the Manifesto of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
      Party, issued in 1898 by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. on the
      instructions and in the name of the Party’s First Congress. The Manifesto
      put forward the struggle for political liberty and the overthrow of the
      autocracy as the chief task of Russian Social-Democracy, and linked the
      political struggle with the general tasks of the working-class movement.

[11]Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause)—amagazine that was the
      organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad. It was published in
      Geneva from April 1899 to February 1902 under the editorship of
      B. N. Krichevsky, P. F. Teplov (Sibiryak), V. P. Ivanshin, and later also
      A. S. Martynov. Twelve numbers (9 books) were issued in all. The Editorial
      Board ofRabocheye Dyelowas the “economists’\thinspace" centre
      abroad. The magazine supported Bernstein’s slogan of “freedom of
      criticism” of Marxism, took an opportunist stand on questions of
      Russian Social-Democracy’s tactics and organisational tasks, denied the
      revolutionary possibilities of the peasantry, and so on. Its supporters
      propagated opportunist ideas of subordinating the proletariat’s political
      struggle to the economic, exalted spontaneity in the working-class
      movement and denied the Party’s leading role. V. P. Ivanshin, one of the
      editors ofRabocheye Dyelo, also took part in editingRabochaya Mysl (Workers’ Thought), organ of the outspoken
      “economists,” whichRabocheye Dyelosupported. At the
      Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., theRabocheye Dyelosupporters
      represented the extreme Right, opportunist wing of the Party.